On 9/21/21 11:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 22:44, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote:Implement SysemuCPUOps::has_work() handler for the ARM v7M CPU. See the comments added in commit 7ecdaa4a963 ("armv7m: Fix condition check for taking exceptions") which eventually forgot to implement this has_work() handler:Huh? M-profile and A-profile share the same arm_cpu_has_work() function. Some of the checks the code there does are perhaps unnecessary for M-profile, but they're harmless.* ARMv7-M interrupt masking works differently than -A or -R. * There is no FIQ/IRQ distinction. The NVIC signal any pending interrupt by raising ARM_CPU_IRQ (see commit 56b7c66f498: "armv7m: QOMify the armv7m container") which ends setting the CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD bit in interrupt_request. Thus arm_v7m_cpu_has_work() implementation is thus quite trivial, we simply need to check for this bit. Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> Cc: Michael Davidsaver <mdavidsa...@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> --- target/arm/cpu_tcg.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/target/arm/cpu_tcg.c b/target/arm/cpu_tcg.c index 0d5adccf1a7..da348938407 100644 --- a/target/arm/cpu_tcg.c +++ b/target/arm/cpu_tcg.c @@ -23,6 +23,11 @@ #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) || !defined(TARGET_AARCH64) #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) && defined(CONFIG_TCG) +static bool arm_v7m_cpu_has_work(CPUState *cs) +{ + return cs->interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD; +}This seems to be missing at least the check on cpu->power_state and the CPU_INTERRUPT_EXITTB test. Is there any reason why we shouldn't just continue to share the same function between A and M profile, and avoid the extra function and the ifdefs ?
The only reason I can think of is I should have been resting instead of posting this patch :/ I'll re-use arm_cpu_has_work() which is, as you said, harmless and safer.
